Pages

Monday, May 13, 2013

Looming Strike for Teachers in Ramona, CA

Teachers in
the Ramona school district in San Diego County have overwhelmingly voted to
authorize a strike. CTA officials say that 99% of the teachers participated in
the vote, with 75% voting in favor of a strike. The vote does not mean that a
strike will necessarily happen, though. Rather, it is a legal requirement
before teachers can actually walk off the job, something their union may ask of
them in the near future if negotiations with their district fail.

Negotiations
are currently stalled, according to the Ramona Patch, in the wake of recent school board
decisions to slash teacher pay by 7.8% this year and 9.4% next year. Donna
Braye-Romero, president of the Ramona Teachers Association, said “We don’t want to strike.
We’ve never wanted to strike. The district is forcing the situation.”

Of course
the district is not actually forcing the teachers to strike—they could just
shut up and take it. After all, Superintendent Robert Graeff is saying there
isn’t enough money and the county Office of Education won’t approve a budget
that is in the red. So from their perspective it is perfectly reasonable to “trim
the fat” to balance their budget, a claim that is routinely made by bosses in
all industries during tough times to justify layoffs and pay cuts. Indeed, this
argument is so “reasonable” that the union itself has accepted it, and even
conceded pay cuts for the first year of the new contract. Rather than demanding
raises, or least maintaining current salaries, with the money coming from the
district’s reserves or from slashed administrators’ salaries, the union is
merely asking for “restitution” language in the new contract, according to the Voice of San Diego, so that if more money comes in in
the future, the extra would go into teachers’ salaries.

California
Teachers Association spokesman Bill Guy believes that the Ramona district is
intent on breaking the union. This is very likely true. However, that is not a
good reason for accepting the bosses’ claims of poverty at face value or for
conceding a significant pay cut, something that may very well weaken the union
by driving some teachers out of the district. Requesting “restitution” language
is itself a significant concession and contributes to the weakening of the
union by showing teachers just how weak and conciliatory their union really is.

On the other
hand, if the district does not moderate its aggressive stance (17.2% pay cut
over the next two years) teachers will almost certainly walk off the job. The
struggle would then be the union’s to “win” or lose. If they do walk out, the
union will likely end the strike if the district withdraws its demand for a
second year of pay cuts, probably even without the “restitution” language. The
union will call it a victory, but the teachers will be working for
significantly less money than they were before, with little hope of ever making
up what they lost.